Whoopsies!NASA only 38% sure that 2014 was the hottest year

[Billy_Bob]

I guess we have at least two threads on this now where conservative deniers jump all over themselves to demonstrate their ignorance of reporting statistical data

This makes at least 40 threads where lefwit morons who have no clue about Margin Of Error and how it relates to statistical significance. Tell me, If you have 3,000 instruments recording temp what defines your margin of error?

 

[rightwinger]

I guess we have at least two threads on this now where conservative deniers jump all over themselves to demonstrate their ignorance of reporting statistical data

This makes at least 40 threads where lefwit morons who have no clue about Margin Of Error and how it relates to statistical significance. Tell me, If you have 3,000 instruments recording temp what defines your margin of error?

The statistical sample of 3000, the accuracy of the instrument

Anything else?

 

[IanC]

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Adjustments-since-1998.jpg
Figure 2 is a plot of the changes in GHCN data for all the months since 1998 up to August of last year. The vertical scale is in 1/100 degree C.

Here is an example. I had downloaded the global data last September, with numbers updated through August. Just now, I downloaded the current data with the numbers through December, completing both the meteorological and calendar years. Here is a chart of the monthly differences between the two data sets for the last 17 years Beware. This data will change every time they get new data and recalculate. The chart shown was from data downloaded at 1 PM eastern time on January 18th, 2015, today. It is different from the data I downloaded last Friday. The changes are small, but they are nearly all in one direction, warmer. One would think that data corrections would be in both directions, some warmer, some cooler, but in the last 17 years, a total of 200 months, only three months were corrected in the cooler direction. Note that in the last year the corrections were mostly in the warmer direction by .02° or more. Only one, August in the September update, was cooled. It was completely offset by the July change. All the changes in the first six months of 2014 were sufficient to make 2014 the warmest calendar year. - See more at: NoTricksZone Not here to worship what is known but to question it 8211 Jacob Bronowski. Climate news from Germany in English 8211 by Pierre L. Gosselin

(I disagree that the first six months of adjustments made 2014 the warmest, as 2010 and 2005 were adjusted up as well)

this graph documents the changes made to the individual years of 1998 through 2014, from the Sept2014 data to the Jan2015 data. a quick visual estimate is about 0.01C increase across the board. in less than half a year. the adjustments are increasing recent temps at a 2C/century clip! dont forget that there are adjustments to the other years in the history as well. before 1960 the temps are being adjusted downward, which adds to the temperature trend while allowing them to state that some adjustments go up and some go down and overall there is little absolute change. they dont point out that the adjustments are one sided on either end of the history and that the trend has gone up quite a bit.

I think it is a joke that they have the nerve to call a few hundredths of a degree the new record when the adjustments themselves are much larger than the interval.

 

[IanC]

 

[Crick]

Very impressive commentary Ian. Another demonstration of the high level of your arguments and the consistent objectivity of your approach. And such humor! God, I laughed till the cows came home.

 

[IanC]

sorry it didnt show above

 

[skookerasbil]

In the world of the AGW k00ks, China does not exist........to them, its like some kind of Middle Earth!!!

Years ago.....almost 2 decades in fact, it is this thinking that first made me suspicious of the AGW crowd.......that they can scream bloody blue murder for carbon restrictions here in the US ( leading of course to far more expensive energy bills ) and knowing China was going full bore with coal ( which they did and have even ramped up use in recent years ). That was the first time I stated thinking there is something very phony about this whole "global warming" stuff.

20 years later, anybody with any kind of ability to connect the dots realizes this push for carbon restrictions never had anything to do with any science...........its all about the agenda for wealth redistribution.

Then you start reading, over the years, shit like this >>>


"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."

- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment





The Green Agenda

 

[IanC]

Very impressive commentary Ian. Another demonstration of the high level of your arguments and the consistent objectivity of your approach. And such humor! God, I laughed till the cows came home.

Im glad you appreciate political cartoons

 

[jc456]

Since neither of you are scientists, what you doubt or think matters little. The scientists worldwide are measuring around 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is an increase of 40+%, and most of it from the burning of fossil fuels.

again, proved by what?

 

[jc456]

They're the same kooks who yell "It's really tied!" when a political poll reports one candidate ahead, but within the margin of error. And they're literally not bright enough to understand why that's so wrong.

strawman!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I guess we have at least two threads on this now where conservative deniers jump all over themselves to demonstrate their ignorance of reporting statistical data

This makes at least 40 threads where lefwit morons who have no clue about Margin Of Error and how it relates to statistical significance. Tell me, If you have 3,000 instruments recording temp what defines your margin of error?

The statistical sample of 3000, the accuracy of the instrument

Anything else?

More precisely the MOE of your worst piece of equipment in use.

Knowing that HCN (NOAA) and GISS use bulb thermometers within their calculations, which have a+/-0.5 deg C, making any measurements below that threshold a moot point and statistically insignificant. When they touted +0.02 Deg C rise all I could do is laugh at the foolish people who think that this is in any way significant. They attempted to save face by showing the real certainty level after they touted and spewed a lie on the front page. A half truth is still a LIE.

 

[elektra]

More like they are admitting to 38% of their, "data" is real.